Subject: RE: Standard API to XSL processors From: "Vun Kannon, David" <dvunkannon@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:52:14 -0500 |
Didn't someone have a .sig floating around for a while that said something such as "data cannot be used at a granularity finer than its markup"? I'm going to take a wild guess that the data structure not well captured by the DOM is the pattern match attribute content that was previously exposed as element structure. The WG giveth (significant structure hidden in attributes), and the WG taketh away (the utility of the DOM to manage the stylesheet tree). Cheers, David vun Kannon > -----Original Message----- > From: Tyler Baker [SMTP:tyler@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 5:58 AM > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Standard API to XSL processors > > Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > > > Could James - and anyone else who has been writing XSL processors or > other > > random-access XML applications - share their experience with using the > DOM > > as internal representation? > > The DOM minus namespace support does a great job for the source tree as is > but > is not so great for the stylesheet tree which needs to be parsed into a > more > granular set of data structures. > > Tyler > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Standard API to XSL processors, Tyler Baker | Thread | Standard API to XSL processors, keshlam |
Sample XML/XSL, Charles Muller | Date | Oops, sorry!, Rick Ross |
Month |